T.C. SUPREME COURT

11.law office
Base: 2015/11329
Decision: 2016/6923
Date of Decision: 22.06.2016

CASE OF COMPENSATION – THERE IS NO INACCURACY IN THE DISCRETION OF THE EVIDENCE – THE DEFENDANT’S DEPUTY FERI ALL APPEALS OF THE INTERVENING DEPUTY ARE OUT OF PLACE – CONFIRMATION OF THE VERDICT

ABSTRACT: According to the fact that the articles in the file were ruled in accordance with the decision of the court to overturn, and there was no error in the discretion of the evidence, the decision had to be upheld because all the appeals of the defendant’s attorney, fer’i intervening attorney were not in place.

(6100 pp. K. Late. m. 3) (3095 p. K. m. 4)

Case and Decision: In a case between the parties dec.. The Court of Cassation reviewed the decision No. 02/06/2015 and 2015/315-2015/399 issued by the Commercial Court of First Instance in accordance with the decision of the defendant, requested fer by the intervention attorney and it was understood that the appeal petition was granted within the period, but due to the fact that the notification expense required for the hearing was not deposited in the examination of the file, temporary 3/2 of Law No. 6100. article 438/1 amended by Law No. 3156 of the HUMK, which must be applied in accordance with the declaration. according to the article, after the refusal of the request for a hearing and the decision to conduct the examination on the file, the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was heard and again the petition, appeals, trial minutes and all documents in the file were read and examined, and then the job was discussed and considered as necessary:

A. Before the transfer of the deputy plaintiffs, their clients and the inheritor of their clients to the defendant bank.On 21.12.1999, before the due date of the money deposited by their clients, they had the Branch of S … open a deposit account in DM.Sh. its management was confiscated by the BRSA and its management was transferred to …, the said bank was later merged with … AS, and the defendant was sold to … A Bank, the deposits deposited by his clients in the bank during the investigation … A.Sh. Off Shore Ltd, which was established by its management as a front in the out-of-court case. A. That the money collected in this way was transferred to the account of a covered bank, that the transfer order was signed by abusing the trust of their clients in the banks and crippling their will, that the money collected in this way was … A.Sh. stating that it has been determined that it has been consumed by its management by making irregular loans to group companies and fictitious companies, that its clients’ deposits have not been paid on the grounds that offshore deposits are outside the scope of insurance, that the defendant bank, which defrauded depositors and their clients in cooperation with the coastal bank, is responsible for the damage suffered by its clients, DM DM receivable receivables deposits with deposits deposited by clients and … 109.937 28.560 deposited by Defendant went into the bank the money from the bank from the date of maturity until the end of the contractual interest rates, if interest rates until the date of payment from contractual maturity date with interest with clients with a default collection to handle Muris, and … …’s heirs of his clients and has prosecuted require to be paid in proportion to their shares of inheritance.

The defendant and his deputy, who had been notified, asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that no hostility could be directed to his client, that the statute of limitations and time limits had been passed, and that the case was not in place in the main aspect of the case.

According to our apartment court warrant reversal, claim, defense, expert reports, and all file according to the scope, 14.602,50 EURO (28.560,00 DEM) of the law of principal receivables from the date of 10/12/1999 3095 4/A will be operated in accordance with the interest taken from the defendant, along with muris owned … … … 1. Magistrates ‘Court 2009/846 E, probate Decree No. 868 of K is in line with … … … … 2. Magistrates’ Court 2011/196 E, K. 151 taking into account the shares of inheritance in the numbered inheritance decree; it has been decided that the 4/12 share will be given to the plaintiff, the 4/12 share to the plaintiff, the 1/12 share to the plaintiff, the 3/12 share to the plaintiff.

The decision was appealed by the defendant’s deputy, the fer’s deputy for intervention.

According to the articles in the file, despite the fact that the court ruled in accordance with the decision to overturn it, and there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, all appeals by the defendant’s attorney, the fer and the intervening attorney are out of place.

Conclusion: For the reasons described above, the defendant’s attorney decided unanimously on 22.06.2016 that there was no room for the APPROVAL of the provision found in accordance with the procedure and law by rejecting all appeals of the defendant’s attorney, receiving fees from the defendant’s attorney, returning the fee he paid to the defendant who appealed at the request of the appeal fee he paid.